Thejane is a disgruntled employee, says Mkhwebane’s counsel

Provincial investigation and integration executive manager in the office of the public protector, Nelisiwe Thejane, was nothing more than a “disgruntled employee” who was making baseless allegations against suspended public protector advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

This was the suggestion of advocate Bright Tshabalala, for Mkhwebane, who was cross-examining Thejane during Wednesday’s sitting of the parliamentary impeachment inquiry.

The section 194 inquiry into Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office began in April to probe allegations of incompetence and misconduct against Mkhwebane.

Last week her legal team, headed by advocate Dali Mpofu walked out, apparently in protest against the refusal by committee chair Qubudile Dyantyi to postpone the inquiry.

This was pending a high court appeal against a refusal by Dyantyi and DA MP Kevin Mileham to recuse themselves from the proceedings.

Mpofu declared that the proceedings were “illegal” and left.

But Mpofu was back on Wednesday.

He said he wanted to address the committee about “what happened” on that day and the possible legal challenge, which would take an hour-and-a-half.

Evidence leader advocate Nazreen Bawa also indicated she wanted to “fix” some errors made in submissions regarding legal fees paid by Mkhwebane.

Dyantyi said these would be done after the cross-examination of Thejane which had been postponed on several occasions.

Mpofu handed the baton to advocate Buthelezi to begin cross-examination.

Thejane’s affidavit before the inquiry focused mainly on a charge that Mkhwebane had “intimidated, harassed and/or victimised staff” — alternately that she failed to protect staff at the PPSA office from intimidation, harassment and/or victimisation by the erstwhile CEO Vussy Mahlangu.

Buthelezi said, however, that there was no evidence in her affidavit to support this or that she had used Mahlangu as her “enforcer”.

He said in the initial motion, initiated by the DA through its then chief whip, Natasha Mazzone, seven names were listed as being people who had, in effect, been bullied, threatened and issued with “audis” (disciplinary notices) on trumped-up charges. 

But Thejane had made no reference to these people in her affidavit.

Thejane said she had been consulted by evidence leaders regarding her role and her experiences.

She had not “altered” the charges, she said.

Buthelezi countered: “I put it to you the reason this was altered because the names of all the people listed here ... these are disgruntled employees of the office, some of them have testified against the public protector and under cross-examination, all of them were discredited. 

“That is why you altered this, because you fall under the same category of the disgruntled employees who came here to make up stories with baseless allegations.”

Thejane said: “I am not a disgruntled employee. I was requested to assist the committee as to how the office was managed and the staff were treated.

“I provided evidence of my experience and how the office was led.”

An issue Thejane raised was that of incessant deadlines and threats of disciplinary action if they were not met.

She said deadlines were not realistic — the backlogs had grown and the quality of work had suffered. 

Asked to comment on Executive Ethics Code investigations which had a 30-day deadline, she said she disagreed with this and it was too stringent.

Buthelezi responded: “You are making a mockery of yourself in front of millions of people ... this cross-examination is taking us nowhere.”

Thejane said she was not disregarding or disrespecting an act of parliament — but deadlines needed to be realistic.

Buthelezi suggested that she was a repeat offender in missing timing targets and had herself been issued with three “audis” because of this.

Thejane said when she joined the office she had inherited matters which were “already in backlog”.

Absenteeism and poor quality had placed a huge burden on her.

“To me, the poor quality was indicative of a serious need for training on report writing. I even had to rewrite some of the notices and reports.”

Buthelezi said she was trying to blame the public protector for everything — including making people work such long hours that it interfered with their private lives.

He pointed to her affidavit, in which Thejane had said from 2019 to 2020 she had “barely slept” in an endeavour to meet impossible deadlines.

She said her staff were also not sleeping because she would contact them at odd hours of the night.

Said Buthelezi: “So it was you who was interfering with their private lives?”

Thejane said: “Yes ... to avoid the Audis ... to meet the deadlines. This cannot be viewed in isolation. The meetings with the public protector stretched way into the night. She (Mkhwebane) did not ask me to call them. But there was a target. If you did not deliver, there was an audi, or harsh words would be said. It was a thing that haunted us.”

The hearing continues on Wednesday and has been set down until Friday.

TimesLIVE